Comment Submitted by Stephen Navarre

With this IFR, USCIS makes a substantive change and not for the better. This rule grants USCIS adjudicators the authority to deny a benefit request solely on the ground that they (in their sole discretion) determine that a signature is invalid. There is no requirement that the signature be determined to be fraudulent or indicative of other illegal actions, but merely deemed to be invalid. The current regulations define a valid signature broadly. However, this rule creates an extreme punishment for what may be a simple mistake by either the benefit applicant or USCIS itself. Moreover, IFR provides no mechanism to cure any errors. Most benefit requests now cost hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars. For example a family of four, including two teenage children applying for adjustment of status with temporary work and travel would pay a combined fee of $9,320.00. Moreover, processing times for most USCIS benefit requests now take many months if not years. When USCIS accepts applications for processing and collects such large fees and still takes a long time to process such requests, then the agency should only deny applications on substantive grounds, not "technicalities." I fail to see how anything USCIS will determine to be "an invalid signature" (except in the case of clear fraud) can be anything but a technicality or, worse, yet, error by USCIS. For examples: 1. Family applies for adjustment of status. Dependent child turns 14 years of age and parent signs an application for them two days later. USCIS takes 10 moths to process the applications and then approves but the child, denying that application on the sole technicality of an invalid signature. Now the child is out of status because the parent's underlying nonimmigrant visa status has terminated due to the parent being granted adjustment of status. Under current administration policy, the child is now subject to issuance of an NTA, separation from family and removal from the United States. USCIS can say "Oh, we would never do that." but such reassurance in nowhere in this IFR. 2. Benefit request is submitted with a photocopy of a hand-written ink signature. However, the pen used is an ultra-fine tip ink pen, which after photocopying often appears to be an electronically generated signature. USCIS adjudicator deems the signature to be electronic and therefore invalid. The applicant is left with little recourse other than to file a Motion to Reconsider which will cost an additional $800.00 and could take many months to be adjudicated with no guarantee that USCIS accepts responsibility for its error. 3. HR Manager of large company is incredibly busy (just like USCIS says it is) and not having read the regulations on validity of signatures, pastes a copy of her one signature on twenty petitions. She is the authorized signatory of otherwise legally proper petitions and there is no indication of fraud. Having collecting the petition fees to process these petitions, USCIS should do just that and issue an RFE or NOID requiring the HR Manager to provide a properly signed form in response. This IFR needs to include a requirement for USCIS to first issue a Request For Evidence or Notice of intent to Deny and provide a legitimate petitioner or applicant to cure an honest mistake. Moreover, USCIS has a tendency when creating regulations to assume that it will always do its job 100% correctly and never make any mistakes. Therefore, USCIS consistently creates processes that have no efficient established procedure for correcting USCIS errors. USCIS' rationale for not including such a requirement (issuance of RFE or NOID before denial) is that it is simply too burdensome. Your job is hard, so is everyone else's. That is not an excuse for issuing a regulation that in my opinion will prove to hurt people unnecessarily. I recognize that it is not USCIS' intention to do that, but when a large and powerful government agency acts thoughtlessly (which in my opinion it is doing so with this hammer of a regulation), little people are hurt. Lastly, this is a substantive change that in my opinion requires the issuance of a proposed regulation first, followed by a more thoughtful analysis of how best to address the problem of truly fraudulent signatures without hurting honest petitioners and applicants.